Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(US Supreme Court) NewsFlash Supreme Court rules that Obamacare is constitutional. The bland mask that is Mitt Romney's face twitches with something called "emotion"   (supremecourt.gov ) divider line
    More: NewsFlash, obamacare, supreme courts, Mitt Romney, supreme court ruling  
•       •       •

14940 clicks; posted to Politics » on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:27 AM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

3329 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | » | Newest

 
2012-06-28 03:18:00 PM  

Silly Jesus: I haven't seen this question asked / answered yet...but I may have missed it.

People are making a point of saying "now all those morans who get free care from the ER are going to have to pay for it (in the form of this mandatory healthcare thingy)
", but those people who abuse the ER are also pretty much guaranteed to be part of the 40% of the country that doesn't pay federal income taxes...so how will this tax fit into that? Will it be the only one that they pay? Won't they just continue to pay no taxes?


First off, when Fox News tells you that 40% of the people in this country "pays no taxes," you have to realize that the 40% stat is of ALL PEOPLE in this country. That means that the 40% includes tax dodgers like 3-year-olds.

Please stop using Fox News and Wing Nut Daily talking points.
 
2012-06-28 03:18:00 PM  

MythDragon: Well, since we just moved that border all the way down to Mexico, I guess I better stock up on moose quarters so I can buy poutine.


That's a Caribou on the quarter, dumbass. Although, they both feel roughly the same when you hit them with your car.
 
2012-06-28 03:18:10 PM  

bongmiester: the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago


when my state was ran by the klan 100 years ago, it damn sure wasn't democrats doing it.
 
2012-06-28 03:18:15 PM  

squirrelflavoredyogurt: bhcompy: vygramul: hbk72777: Lot's a shiat heads on both side here with the usual partisan posts.

Some of the Obamacare is good. Kids with pre existing conditions being able to get in on plans, same with sick adults.

But I am not paying the tax. I can't afford it. If I could, I'd buy farking health insurance in the first place.

See you in jail.

Oh, look! Someone else who doesn't know what Obamacare does!

Is it indexed to col by zip or even state? Or is it the same shiatty poverty shiat they apply across the US where you couldn't even afford an apartment in the worst city in the state when you're 10k over the national poverty level and thus qualify for nothing that isn't local?

What you want someone else to read it for you and tell you? How do you know you can trust them?


Part of a good argument includes more than quips.

mrshowrules: I'm curious what your prediction on the ruling was today.


I don't think anyone predicted that they would qualify it as a tax and ignore the Commerce Clause play. Most people that said it would fail said that it would based on it being a misuse of the Commerce Clause, which it clearly was/is. There is a new justification for it that is completely separate from what was expected to be a Commerce Clause debate.

Anti_illuminati: Wrong. Those who refuse to pay for want will ultimately be incurred is selfish. You'll get sick, you'll get hit by a bus, you'll have terminal cancer, you'll incur medical expenses no matter which way you look at it. Why should I have to pay for you getting hit by a bus and dying? You're not paying the medical costs, are you? You just want a free ride until its time to meet your maker, then its "fark everyone else, I deserve this medical treatment".


1) There is no guarantee that rates will go down, so they will go up. They always do. It's built in to the contracts that sales reps sell to companies for benefits packages for crying out loud.

2) Why are you assuming that people are going to pay? You just changed the burden, slightly.
-Person who can't afford it before will still not be able to afford it and instead of passing the full cost on to the taxpayer directly will then pass it on to the insurance company(while the taxpayer picks up their premium)
-When this person gets hit with a huge bill because of things like deductibles, non-covered medicine/treatments, improperly billed items, etc, because I have insurance and I get hit with huge bills for things like this already, they will pass that direct cost on to the taxpayer when they refuse to pay
-Meanwhile, the insurance companies lose doctors because their contracts pay the doctors too little and the deadbeats still fail to pay their now potentially smaller portion of bills, so the insurance companies go to the Federal government asking for help because they have far too many liabilities, thus bringing us back to square one, but instead of having the taxpayer directly liable, instead they're liable after all the money and profits have been laundered by the insurance companies
 
2012-06-28 03:18:47 PM  

NateGrey: Democrats: Dragging the Regressive-Republicans into the modern era for over 60 years.


What a simple world you live in.
 
2012-06-28 03:19:03 PM  

Corvus: Gdalescrboz: As a healthy person who can afford my own insurance i dont care either way abotu this ruling. However, for the people that are going to be required to have it, i feel bad for you. Give it 10 years and you will be looking at certain criteria you have to meet in order to be on a health care plan the government requires you to have. Acohol consumption? Smoking? High risk activities? Burger king? Gambling? Not sure what it will be like, but shiat in your personal life is not going to be the same. For better or for worse, people on required gov't healthcare have lost a chunk of personal freedom. Americans could use big brother taking away their double stacker with double cheese since they can't put it down on their own

Then why don't those rules exist in countries that have had these laws for decades already?

You men government might come in and say things like "You can't have abortions anymore"? That would be horrible!!! Oh wait they already do that!


This almost sounds like something that might happen in Florida...
 
2012-06-28 03:19:08 PM  

Dinki: NeoCortex42: Of course, this assumes medical charges don't just skyrocket to compensate and keep costs high.

Um, The ACA addresses that - The Affordable Care Act creates a Rate Review program in your state to help protect individuals and small businesses from unreasonable health insurance rate increases.


curious... it says a 10% increase but does not state a time frame i.e. 10% per year?
 
2012-06-28 03:19:09 PM  

Silly Jesus: I haven't seen this question asked / answered yet...but I may have missed it.

People are making a point of saying "now all those morans who get free care from the ER are going to have to pay for it (in the form of this mandatory healthcare thingy)
", but those people who abuse the ER are also pretty much guaranteed to be part of the 40% of the country that doesn't pay federal income taxes...so how will this tax fit into that? Will it be the only one that they pay? Won't they just continue to pay no taxes?


You think that ER service costs the same as non-emergency regular insurance covered care? So you see no positive change in the bottom line?
 
2012-06-28 03:19:59 PM  

heap: [www.girlpants.org image 368x246]
MEDICAL BANKRUPTCY!


goo.gl
 
2012-06-28 03:20:08 PM  

ciberido: jodaveki: Grables'Daughter: I made enough for everyone.

: )

Please tell me that's what you actually look like...

What?

Account created: 2011-07-10 21:33:51

You've been here almost a year and you're just now discovering Grables'Daughter?


ciberido made me smile.
 
kab
2012-06-28 03:20:13 PM  
So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.
 
2012-06-28 03:20:26 PM  

StandsWithAFist: People living on the borderline of poverty may opt to pay the penalty tax instead if insurance is still too costly.


That is only if the subsidies (see pg. 4-7) are gutted. If they are funded as is designed in PPACA, said family at, say, 200% of poverty, would pay ~$2000 a year for 'silver' insurance (no more than 6.3% of income).

At that level, yes, they might choose the $800/year penalty over the $2000/year insurance, but the latter is most likely a really, really, really good deal for them. That said, I've known poor people who religiously fark up every halfway-decent deal that comes their way, so there will be some.
 
2012-06-28 03:21:04 PM  

bongmiester: the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago

funny how that works out


10/10


This one always works.
 
2012-06-28 03:21:39 PM  

gadian: So, taking the tax hit, for me, would be $800 (1% of income), if I chose to go that route. Hmm, I'd say that's a damn small price to pay for the benefits. Of course, I have health insurance that isn't going to change, so...I'm not paying anything more. That's even better.

Quit whining about the "tax", you know you don't make enough for it to really matter. If you made enough for the "tax" to matter, you would have health insurance already.


But it's a tax! TAXES BAD~! TAXES BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD~!
 
2012-06-28 03:21:41 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: However you need to stay the hell out of my wallet and give me the courtesy to let me do what I want also.


Thankyou for proving Lord Dimwit correct.

If you're willing to let people suffer and die because of your wallet, you aren't human.
 
2012-06-28 03:21:49 PM  

Anti_illuminati: This is patently ignorant, and as an underwriter, I can see you have no idea what your talking about and your addressing the issue in platitudes.


Your total lack of a substantive response tells me that you have no substantive response.

Either that, or you genuinely believe that retailers have the same property liability risk as owners who conduct ultra-hazardous activities such as demolition and radioactive waste disposal.

Or there's no cost difference between insuring for medical services for obese people versus fit people.
 
2012-06-28 03:21:51 PM  

Aikidogamer: farkerofDOOM: I see your point. But seriously. What is the big deal. I'm still trying to figure out what all the wharrgarbl is about. You either choose to get insurance or you choose to pay the tax. Big whoop.

The point is this:

Taxes usually require some action to become applicable. Mere living is the action now. It sets a dangerous precedent.


lolwut?
 
2012-06-28 03:22:07 PM  

fracto73: qorkfiend: The_Sponge: Anti_illuminati: Oh come on. There's no need for this "beloved Obama" bullsh:t. You just make yourself look petty.


Fine....but I whipped out "beloved" because none of you can admit that he broke a promise.

No, we just don't consider it to have the earth-shattering importance you do.


In my opinion he didn't break a promise. He said that his plan didn't have those increases, but we didn't get his plan. Congress wouldn't support an Obama plan. So we got congress' plan instead.


Exactly; so its so funny as hell that the Fark Indys are trying to pin this on Obama.
 
2012-06-28 03:22:09 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


People who qualify (lower-mid-class and below) get vouchers to pay for health care up to 95% of the cost of their care.
 
2012-06-28 03:22:10 PM  

Lando Lincoln: The_Sponge: Rwa2play: I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.

You guys can't even admit that he broke that promise. At least keep it real by admitting that he did, but you don't mind because you like the end result.

If I promise my wife I'm not going to buy a blue car and I come home with a red car, and two years later my kid dumps a can of blue paint on the car and my wife screams, "BUT YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD NOT BUY A BLUE CAR!" would I be allowed to punch her in the face like you deserve to be?


That is one awful analogy.

/So wonderful that some people in this thread are reduced to insults and childish behavior.
//Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.
 
2012-06-28 03:22:17 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


If you can't afford your own health insurance, you're probably going to qualify for an exemption or at least a subsidy.
 
2012-06-28 03:22:18 PM  

Lord Dimwit: I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.


Because you vote for what gets you closest to your favored result? Are you completely unfamiliar with with the concept of representative democracy and how it is instituted in America?
 
2012-06-28 03:22:21 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Hey what ever you want to do in your private life is fine with me want to suck a "D" go ahead I don't care. Want to abort a child go ahead I may not like it but it is not my body. Do what ever the hell you want as long as you don't force me to do it. However you need to stay the hell out of my wallet and give me the courtesy to let me do what I want also. Which includes not using the governments monopoly on force to take from me in order to buy votes.


What if I want to drive on the left side of the road? Should I be free to do that?
What if I don't want my tax dollars to fund police departments or fire departments or the military or to fund medical research like stem cells or in vitro fertilization which may result in the destruction of viable human embryos? Should the government stay out of my wallet in those instances?
What the hell makes you think the government has a monopoly on force? All it has is a different kind of force from the individuals in your life and the organizations you do business with (whether that business is voluntary or obligatory).
 
2012-06-28 03:22:25 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


If you make below a certain threshold, you are exempt from the tax. If you make very little, you can use the expanded medicaid. If you make too much for that, but not enough to easily afford insurance, you can get your insurance premium subsidized to make it more affordable.
 
2012-06-28 03:22:44 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


if you can't afford healthcare you don't pay the penalty
 
2012-06-28 03:23:06 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


actually it penalizes people who CAN afford their own health insurance but choose not to get it
 
2012-06-28 03:23:56 PM  

chiefsfaninkc: Fluorescent Testicle: Well I'll be motherfarking damned.

Some faith in the SCOTUS has been restored.

Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.


You probably also believe that if gays are allowed to marry then people will be allowed to marry lamps and turtles.
 
2012-06-28 03:24:03 PM  

ontariolightning: andrewskdr: ontariolightning: raise taxes on everything, cut way back on military expenditures and spend the money on universal healthcare for all Americans

problem solved

Let me guess, you're one of the people who gift extra money to the treasury each year for fun? No, you don't do that? Shocker..

I'm sorry I don't speak the language of oh my god how am I going to pay this hospital bill


oh snap!
 
2012-06-28 03:24:04 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


By providing subsidies or penalty waivers to people who meet minimum guidelines, and expanding Medicaid to a larger segment of the population.

The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.
 
2012-06-28 03:24:06 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


They get death paneled.
 
2012-06-28 03:24:36 PM  

Smelly McUgly: Hey, look, someone figured out that communism isn't a complete blanket bad thing and that some elements of communist economics work depending on the context!


No, collectivization destroys prices, which destroys the information needed to make production and consumption decisions.
 
2012-06-28 03:24:38 PM  

heap: bongmiester: the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago

when my state was ran by the klan 100 years ago, it damn sure wasn't democrats doing it.


Indiana? look up D. C. Stephenson. Started as a Democrat - changed parties in the 20's
 
2012-06-28 03:24:42 PM  

kab: So cool, this penalizes people who can't afford their own healthcare. How does it actually benefit them?

/serious question.


The subsidies. Serious answer.

That, and the non-deniability, community rating, real competition (the 'exchange' market will almost certainly have more options than most employees have at their workplace... typically one if it's not zero). Etc.
 
2012-06-28 03:24:50 PM  

heap: bongmiester: the democrats were the party of the KKK 100 years ago

when my state was ran by the klan 100 years ago, it damn sure wasn't democrats doing it.


I'll bet you more of them were D's than R's.

They swapped spots mid-century. It's part of the secret Federal Nutcase Custody Agreement. Dems have to take em for 80 years, Repubs have to take em for 80 years. Rinse and repeat.

We're overdue for another swap, but the nutcases refuse to leave the (R)'s house and they won't even talk to the (D)'s during weekly visitations.
 
2012-06-28 03:24:51 PM  
bwilson27:
www.hostingbytes.us

"Essentially".
 
2012-06-28 03:25:04 PM  
Is the ACA now considered bipartisan now that the Chief Conservative Justice of the Supreme Court has given it his blessing?
 
2012-06-28 03:25:11 PM  
The more I see Republicans gnashing their teeth over things that help their fellow man, the less I respect them as fellow humans. In fact, they only cheer things that they think will directly fark over their fellow humans.

Republicans are digging themselves into an ideological hole that they will not be able to crawl out of. They're not "like" comic book villains, they ARE comic book villains.
 
2012-06-28 03:25:27 PM  

mr lawson: Dinki: NeoCortex42: Of course, this assumes medical charges don't just skyrocket to compensate and keep costs high.

Um, The ACA addresses that - The Affordable Care Act creates a Rate Review program in your state to help protect individuals and small businesses from unreasonable health insurance rate increases.

curious... it says a 10% increase but does not state a time frame i.e. 10% per year?


But also
A) They will compete more. There are going to be market places where people will be able to compare apples to apples plans. (well some state Republicans are refusing to set these up for their states currently).

B) they are capped at 80% must be spent on actual healthcare.
 
2012-06-28 03:26:01 PM  

Jackson Herring: heap: [www.girlpants.org image 368x246]
MEDICAL BANKRUPTCY!

[goo.gl image 361x480]


badatsports.com

TONIGHT, WE DINE ON FANCY MUSTARD
 
2012-06-28 03:26:02 PM  

The_Sponge: Lando Lincoln: The_Sponge: Rwa2play: I like how you and your brethren keep trying to push this as a talking point when, in fact, it's not.

But do keep farking that chicken.

You guys can't even admit that he broke that promise. At least keep it real by admitting that he did, but you don't mind because you like the end result.

If I promise my wife I'm not going to buy a blue car and I come home with a red car, and two years later my kid dumps a can of blue paint on the car and my wife screams, "BUT YOU PROMISED ME THAT YOU WOULD NOT BUY A BLUE CAR!" would I be allowed to punch her in the face like you deserve to be?

That is one awful analogy.

/So wonderful that some people in this thread are reduced to insults and childish behavior.
//Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.


No, it's a perfectly apt analogy. You just have no retort.
 
2012-06-28 03:26:20 PM  

bhcompy: Lord Dimwit: I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.

Because you vote for what gets you closest to your favored result? Are you completely unfamiliar with with the concept of representative democracy and how it is instituted in America?


No, I get it - that's why I said "that's fine, but own up to it." If you vote Republican because you believe they are the party of "freedom", know that you're saying that your freedom to spend money is more important that your (or my or anyone else's) freedom to marry whom they choose, or deal with their own reproductive organs. That's okay if you want to believe that, though I personally think it's rather greedy and misinformed.
 
2012-06-28 03:26:23 PM  

HeartBurnKid: But it's a tax! TAXES BAD~! TAXES BAAAAAAAAAAAAAD~!


Even taxes on scofflaws? You oppose the American legal system?

Why do you hate America?
 
2012-06-28 03:26:45 PM  
His promise was to all Americans making under 250K....it wasn't a promise to only those who were going to vote for him. Yeesh.
 
2012-06-28 03:26:46 PM  

qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.


Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.
 
2012-06-28 03:27:00 PM  

Lord Dimwit: chiefsfaninkc: Fluorescent Testicle: chiefsfaninkc: Then your faith is misguided. Freedom died today. Congress can now make you buy anything they want and "Tax" you if you do not.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 316x400]

/I'm sure this has been posted already.
//Can't be posted enough.

Sorry I am a libertarian not a conservative. Freedom is the only thing that means anything everything else is a byproduct of freedom. Again freedom died today people that are celebrating its death are idiots.

I know tons of self-labeled libertarians. Why is economic freedom so much more important that social freedom? My libertarian friends talk about how they vote Republican because the Republicans want "freedom" - but what they mean is "economic freedom". The Republican Party doesn't want freedom of reproductive choice, freedom of religious choice, or freedom of marriage. If you vote for a Republican, you are implicitly saying that money-related "freedom" is more important than your freedom to do as you please with your own body or in your own bedroom. That's fine if you believe that, but own up to it.


democrats no more believe in freedom than the current incarnation of the gop. they believe in freedom to do what you want as long as it doesn't conflict with the goals of the collective or how they think you should live your life. this is why true authoritarians like weaver feel so comfortable making the switch.

they want just want to slide what is morally acceptable open a bit, but don't for a second conflate that with true freedom. liberals definitely believe the government has the constitutional ability and more than that the obligation to restrict freedom as it sees fit to forward the goals of the collective.

they don't believe in any personal freedom whatsoever. the freedom to do with your body what you want only extends to things they deem moral. they don't have a problem with killing fetus, so you can do that. its got jackshiat to do with personal autonomy. that's why drugs are illegal, sex with your llama is illegal, sex with your sister is illegal. they don't want people to be free to marry anyone they want. they want people to be free to marry who they think is morally acceptable.

they have the exact same categorical failings as republicans, but at least some republicans in many regards can be said to favor the individual rights over the collective in all conflicts.

yes the republican party is dominated right now by the religious right who we need to dump on their asses, but democrats are inherently authoritarian and think all personal autonomy is up for regulation if it conflicts with the goals of the collective.

this is observable by everyone with a brain stem, and that is why true libertarians still side with conservatives more often than not. religious based moralism as practiced by the gop is abhorrent, but it is not immutable and there is the undercurrent of individualism still running through the party that will some day rise again; while collectivism can't exist under any other terms.
 
2012-06-28 03:27:05 PM  

xltech: HeartBurnKid: xltech: Well, I will be out of a job in the medical field within 2 years... thanks a lot libs. Small rural clinics like mine will be shut down because of the high cost of compliance. We were already worried about the mandidtory Electronic Records implementation to get reimbursement with Medicare/Medicaid. That alone was going to cost us over $50k. We will be closed within 2 years now.

What new regulations are imposed on clinics by the PPACA? AFAIK, pretty much everything in it deals with insurers, not medical practitioners. Including the mandate that was at issue.

RIght now, we do not have enough staff to take care of all the "prior authorizations" we are forced to deal with. Medicaid in our state is going to require us to prior authorize every procedure, among other things, (no matter how minor like clipping toenails) and we must meet criteria before said procedure can be done. With any more increases, we will need to hire at least one employee full time. We have one Doctor, one PA one nurse and I do all the lab work, EKGs and x-rays, 3 others work in the office for billing, insurance and coding. With reimbursements going down, costs going up and no big hospital sponsoring us... we will be closing. Then, maybe I can get free health care and not work.... let all you libs support me for once!


You're managing well enough - you're able to hang out on Fark in the middle of a work day.
 
2012-06-28 03:27:40 PM  
do we have an over/under on when faux news stops calling it "Obamacare" so the president's name doesn't become permanently attached to it?
 
2012-06-28 03:27:46 PM  

The_Sponge: //Apparently disagreeing with Obama and pointing out a broken promise warrant a punch in the face.


www.myfacewhen.net

"Hearing the same stupid thing repeated over and over again can elicit frustration and annoyance from even the most mild-mannered of listeners."
 
2012-06-28 03:27:57 PM  

Phinn: Smelly McUgly: Hey, look, someone figured out that communism isn't a complete blanket bad thing and that some elements of communist economics work depending on the context!

No, collectivization destroys prices, which destroys the information needed to make production and consumption decisions.


Untrue, depending on the context. When it comes to selling, say, Lexuses, you are right. When it comes to health care, you aren't. There are a number of ways to measure health care needs and costs even if health care is collectivized under the state.
 
2012-06-28 03:28:01 PM  

Phinn: qorkfiend: The people who are penalized are those who can afford it, and choose to go without.

Thank you for deciding what I can and can't afford.

Can you dictate my choices of toilet paper, please? I'm too busy working to subsidize other people's sloth and gluttony to choose between the 2-ply and the ultra-plush.


try sandpaper
 
Displayed 50 of 3329 comments


Oldest | « | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | » | Newest


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report